Using case law, legal opinions and
scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public
health officials to experiment on humans without their informed
consent.

Fluoride
chemicals added to public water supplies, although touted as a safe and
effective method to reduce tooth decay, surprisingly have never been thoroughly studied for many critical adverse and long-term health
effects.

Government
agencies hoping to fill the knowledge-void recommend that research finally be
done, specifically to brain, bone, kidneys, endocrine system, bladder cancer,
genotoxicity, and more (NRC
2006). In effect, they are using the entire human population as
unwitting guinea pigs in their failing but ongoing fluoridation experiment.

Fluoridation
will certainly go down in history as the biggest public health blunder of all time.The US government just isn’t willing to bury
it, yet – probably for political reasons.

Even President Obama’s science czar was unkind to fluoridation when he wrote in 1977 “The
scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at
the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is
not as good as it ought to be…”

Barnett-Rose
writes, “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive. Adding a drug
to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay
is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that

the risks of
this drug are still being determined by public agencies supports an argument
that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment. As
such, this experiment should be subject to informed consent

for each human
subject affected.”

She adds, "It
is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the
accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride
children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious
health consequences.”

‘Unfortunately,
rather than considering new data objectively, public health officials and dental
lobbies spearheading fluoridation schemes often ignore, reject, or suppress the
evidence that does not toe the profluoride party line,” she writes.

After
scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential
for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence,
that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and
least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades
of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.

Barnett-Rose writes: “Fluoridation
proponents have historically characterized those opposing or questioning
fluoridation as “irrational, fanatical, unscientific and
fraudulent,” regardless of the legitimate scientific credentials of those

opposing
fluoridation. However, mounting scientific evidence against fluoridation
has begun to persuade an increasing number of scientific researchers
and dental and medical professionals, and even some formerly

avid fluoride
proponents.”

“The cessation
of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public
health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens," she writes.